| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |
| Date: | 2014-09-10 01:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HOVkz7UGZ1gWGn07zsb3MfLXKOpAROLQMNOJ5_t+CWcZg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Yes, I did think about that, but it seems like a behavior change.
>> > However, it is tempting to avoid future bug reports about this.
>>
>> When this came up in March, Tom and I agreed that this wasn't something
>> we wanted to slip into 9.4. Given that, it is hard to argue we should
>> now slip this into 9.5, 9.4, and 9.3, so unless someone else votes for
>> inclusion, I think I will leave this as 9.5-only.
>
> With no one replying, I will consider this issue closed and not
> backpatch this.
I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything
significant to add. It's a behaviour change from not-working to
working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-09-10 02:25:13 | Re: LIMIT for UPDATE and DELETE |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2014-09-10 00:16:03 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |